Crazy censorship at Physics Forums

Of course we have the crackpot problem

Let me be clear : I am perfectly aware that any good scientific forum requires a form of censorship,
to not be flooded by that sort of tidal wave of some crazy ignorant people strongly believing
that they discovered major loopholes or errors in established modern physics (or other sciences)
and/or some amazing new theory or viewpoint or research path... all based on their ignorance:
they feel sure of the value of their ideas just because they don't have the skill or knowledge needed
to understand what is wrong there ; and it is not really possible to reply to them because properly
sorting things out would require learning science, by some hard work too long to fit
in the given discussion format. Such people would be too numerous in the world for a space
of discussion and explanations about known science, to be properly
managed by merely trying to "argue", without also blocking these people from posting in, at least,
the spaces we need for serious scientific discussions.
I already developed myself longer explanations of this
general problem, and I worked myself quite a time in some periods, debunking some pseudo-science,
including a case which was, at that time,
mistaken as serious science by French science popularization magazines and even by
a magazine officially specialized in debunking pseudo-science.

For these reasons, it is expectable that the moderators of Physics Forums
practice that censorship as well, and that, if you look for complaints against their
moderation practice, most of them will indeed be that sort
of cranks of science, who generally criticize the scientific community for what they
perceive as closed-mindedness and conformity to existing theories as "dogmas".

Now these observations are correct but still say nothing whether the behaviors of
Physics Forums moderators is actually a good one, since... just forcing conformity
to political correctness, which indeed works quite often in face of the above described
problem is, after all, an easy practice that hardly requires any form of wisdom.

They cast mad insults and then censor the replies

There was a previous time when I was madly insulted, more precisely by
a staff member of that forum, to which my reply was censored.
Here is the last striking example that it again happened to me, which motivated me to
write the present page (fortunately I saved my post which was censored so here it is)
Title: Can modern physics be understood qualitatively?
My first reply (which was accepted) :

I see you implicitly assuming a radical
opposition between being mathematical (accurate) and being described in words
without equations. I disagree with the idea of such an opposition. Indeed some of
the math needs equations hard to understand for the majority, but I still see possibilities
to express some exact math in words and "non-mathematical style" without too much
difficulty as well, which unfortunately remains largely unexploited in usual physics teaching.
And this widespread ignorance of the possible clean "exact math without equations" to explain
things, is a mere particular case of the more general fact that much too often, physics
teachers just repeat the same usual methods, lacking (or failing to use) the mathematical
skills to rewrite their theories in cleaner and more appropriate mathematical forms.
And math is full of rich concepts as well, far beyond issues of numerical values,
so we shouldn't oppose the "conceptual" to the "mathematical" nor confuse "mathematical"
with "numerical exactness", even if of course, it is very possible and widespread to
present "conceptual approaches" which are mathematically wrong and nonsensical.
You can see for example how my presentation of Special Relativity
is more conceptually correct and mathematically meaningful than usual courses
precisely because I got rid of the numerically correct but conceptually inappropriate
complicated formulas officially associated with this theory. And I even find good
to develop the correctness of the mathematical conceptualization at the expense
of the numerical correctness, by showing
how relativity problems can be exactly solved by first assuming numerically incorrect
negative values of c2 and then deducing the numerically correct results by applying the
formula on values of c2 other than the ones by which we got it (using the analytic
expansion as a function of c-2).
It is also possible and clearer to explain just in words the least action principle (that is
just the principle of equilibrium in a field of potential over the configuration space, when
considering things in 4D), and deduce from it also just in words the conservation laws
and the Liouville theorem. I also explained just in words (I admit it is not a full and rigorous
explanation but...) how electromagnetism derives from a Lagrangian, and the sign issues
around it. For introducing quantum physics (just an introduction but) I also have a
mathematical approach exactly formulated in the language of geometry, itself mainly
expressed in words, with very few formulas. On the other hand I find that we need
formulas to express statistical physics (define entropy and explain its creation process),
disagreeing with the usual "qualitative" approaches.

What was replied to me :

But you are forgetting one very
crucial factor.
Just because you are able to explain all of these without using any math, how do you
know that your message has been accurately received and understood by the type of
audience that you intended this for? Did you do a thorough research on the effectiveness
of your message? Have you investigated what people who have read your page understood
what you were trying to convey?
We have seen way too many examples and cases, even in this forum, where non-scientists
and students read one thing, and understood something else entirely! We have enough
evidence where even how we arrange our words in describing something can trip someone
into understanding it in a different way!
It is why we tell people here that simply asking something based on "I heard that..."
or "I read that..." is not sufficient. We try to force people to cite their sources, and
more often than not, when we find these source, they have misinterpreted what they read.
This has occurred quite often!
So sure, even *I* can come up with a bunch of prose to describe many aspects of physics.
But it doesn't mean that what I wrote and intended are what the reader will understand.
You haven't shown any evidence that what you have written was accurately understood.
Zz.

My last replied, which was censored

"Just because you are able to explain all of these without using any math"
You are here distorting my claim (as you follow widespread wrong assumptions, I understand they
are hard to get rid of...) despite my care to be clear. I cared to specify that my approach IS a
mathematical one. It just does not fit some wrong preconceptions about the nature of mathematics
which some confuse with taking packs of numbers and operating over them. The truth of the nature of mathematics is different.
I'd even say my approach is more authentically mathematical. The mathematicality of an approach
should not be judged by the superficial appearance of whether it is written in words or in symbolic
notation. An authentic mathematization of a theory consists in making the correct choice of the
vocabulary in which it is expressed. A mathematically correct choice of vocabulary of a theory is
a choice which coincides with a good list of structures which are useful and invariant structures
of the intended theory. Unfortunately, usual physics courses are full of pseudo-mathematizations
of theories, here I mean that, while numerically correct, they are based non-invariant formalizations
(namely, choices of coordinate systems while no such choice is given by nature).
"Did you do a thorough research on the effectiveness of your message?" I welcome one if you
provide the opportunity. The problem is that in the current world I could
not find any place yet for such an experimentation (if you know one please tell). Anyway I
see no sense of objecting to any proposition of innovation that it has not been experimented yet,
as it would be an excuse for dogmatism and rejection of any possible progress. Apart from this,
I develop my propositions of new approach based on my careful examinations of what actually is
the logical architecture of theories in themselves. I don't have a mind twisted enough to paralyze
myself with decisions to not say the truth about things in themselves under the excuse that they
would be unsuccessful on some given people. Anyway my point is not to claim that a specific
method should fit all. My point is to say directly how thing are in reality. I guess some people will
follow, others not. So what ? It's up to everyone to see if this way fits them or not. Nevertheless
this won't stop me from describing things as they are, and as I anyway I guess it will fit at least
some people, and anyway, these specific people deserve my care to do it for them.

I also commented on this need of clarifying physics by mathematical logic in this general
introduction to my site that is going to be published in the News Bulletin of the Iranian Association for
Logic. Also he has such a crazy conception of who should carry the burden of proof about which kind of
teaching of physics would provide a clearer understanding, while I am a mere isolated researcher in my
try to innovate, lost in a world dominated by an army of zombie professors who
just repeat their same ways without even thinking about it, and clearly failing in their way as we see the
result of how many people in the world fall into crackpotism as they indeed observe the bad quality of
the explanations which physics teachers usually provide.
So what is this accusation which they find good to cast over me without letting me a right to reply:
that is a physicist insisting that his approach is mathematical while mine wouldn't be just because my way of being mathematical does not fit the petty format of his expectations. This, no matter how good a mathematician I am, while I cared to get a math PhD and I spend much time clarifying the foundations of mathematics, which I cared to learn and to better explain
than what can usually be found elsewhere. And that my care in physics was to provide a
mathematical approch... but in a sense which does not look usual for physicists.
But, what is crackpotism ? That is non-scientists claiming to be better scientists than professional scientists just because the reactions of scientists don't fit the petty format of what these ignorants require, for them to see something as "rational".
The difference ? There isn't any. It is this a form of crackpotism which the moderators
of Physicsforums decided to enforce, and to forbid replying to.
We can also notice the contradiction between their reasons to treat me like shit in
the previous discussion and in this one. They previously treated me like shit because
I was stupid enough to not kill my mother who forced me to give my life to the system,
because, everybody should know, entering the system is something clearly stupid and
only stupid people go there.
This time, I am treated like shit because I did not yet experiment my ideas inside the system
(and neither outside the system, where hardly anyone can be found, and well, I only have
little chance of getting any feedback, as I have no reason to force any people to do so, they
are free to do it but usually don't... anyway I think re-checking myself my texts to see how to make
them clearer and clearer was already quite a fruitful work, no less efficient, I guess, than
collecting any mess of detailed feedback of people who could not grasp something because
of not clean explanations)

If you nevertheless have the courage of going there to write something which
someone may not like, a good advice : keep your own copy of your post to not lose it !

Moreover, there are big places in Physicsforums where the most usual, obvious and fat
scientific crackpotism is totally welcome. Namely... in its advertising banners !!!!! Just now
in a thread there I find a big ad banner that reads "Einstein was Wrong -
Evidence proves Relativity false, revealing cause of gravity & light. Go to ***.com"

Other troubles with that site

It is just a shamelessly commercial site. It is full of advertising banners.
Every time you copy-paste a piece of text from there, it spams a
"Reference https://www.physicsforums....."at the end of your selection.
It was creates by Greg Bernhardt. As presented in his profile there:
Educational Background: Undergrad
Degree in: Information Science
Favorite Area of Science: Technology
So he's not a physicist. Why expect the moderation there to be scientifically wise ?
No surprise it isn't.